Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r3YUL-00005bC; Sat, 5 Nov 94 01:56 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0016; Sat, 05 Nov 94 01:56:20 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0014; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 01:56:03 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3310; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 00:35:07 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 16:34:12 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Cowan weighs in #1: specific, definite X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2463 Lines: 52 Specific/definite as I understand them (these terms are part of linguistics jargon, and neither linguistics nor logic is my profession): SPECIFIC (sometimes spelled "+specific"): a reference is specific if the speaker's intention fixes the referent. English pronouns are specific, most English uses of "the" are specific (but note American English "I am in the hospital" which is non-specific), Lojban "le" is specific. NON-SPECIFIC (sometimes spelled "-specific"): a reference is non-specific if it is not specific. English "a" is sometimes non-specific, Lojban "da" is non-specific. DEFINITE (sometimes spelled "+definite"): a reference is definite if the listener knows the referent. English "the" is usually definite. INDEFINITE (sometimes spelled "-definite"): a referent is indefinite if the listener does not know the referent. Except in pathological cases, a non-specific reference is always indefinite: if the speaker does not fix the reference, the listener cannot know it. For completeness, I will add: VERIDICAL: a description (not any reference, but one which contains what purports to be a property of the referent) is veridical if the referent must have (se ckaji) the property. Lojban "lo" is veridical. NON-VERIDICAL: a description is non-veridical if the referent may or may not actually have the property. Lojban "le" is non-veridical. The open question is whether "lo" is specific or non-specific; or perhaps it is vague wrt specificity. mi klama le zarci specific mi klama da poi zarci non-specific mi klama lo zarci ??? As far as I know, Lojban doesn't mark definiteness in any way. There has been some talk of an attitudinal to mark it, but none has ever been proposed. And holds that "a certain man" is specific; Jorge held that it was not. I believe that "a certain man" is indeed specific, as the speaker's intention fixes which man is meant, but it is not definite, because the listener has no way of knowing. On this view, the "normalness" of "Which man?" is not a test of specificity but of definiteness: a listener who says "Which?" to an indefinite reference is legitimately asking for a referent, whereas the listener who says "Which?" to a definite reference is expressing his confusion. (But then again, perhaps I am merely expressing my confusion.) -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.